Images beyond Representation: Baldessari, Magritte and the Limits of Language by Christopher Kamper

Images beyond Representation: Baldessari, Magritte and the Limits of Language

Christopher Kamper christopher.kamper@gmail.com www.christopherkamper.com

Abstract The main purpose of this paper is to establish a critical discourse about the concepts of representation and the limits of language applicable to the work of John Baldessari and Rene Magritte. It questions the role of art as a sign system embedded in our culture and investigates whether certain artistic approaches can transcend the limits thereof. The most important critical concepts being explained in the first half and employed in the following examination are Michel Foucault's resemblance and similitude, Roland Barthes' polysemous character of the image, Jean Baudrillard's theories on the simulacrum and hyperreality and Wittgenstein's notions of the inseparability of thought and language. The verbal exploration of Magritte's and Baldessari's work in the second half of this paper is set up in the format of a dialogue to illustrate their common motifs and intersections as well as their differences. Not only are some of their seminal works being scrutinized, it is also the aim of this paper to shine some light on the figure of the artist that emerges out of their work. The paper concludes that although the limits of language cannot be overcome by art, the work of Baldessari and Magritte offers great insight into the process by which meaning is both created and obstructed through language.

Contents

1. Concepts to Discuss Images and Language .......................................................................... 4 1.1 The Difference between Images and Words .............................................................................. 4 1.2 The Polysemous Character of the Image ................................................................................... 5 1.3 The Succession of the Image ..................................................................................................... 6 1.4 The Innate Deceit of Imagery ..................................................................................................... 7 1.5 The Systemic Defect of Representation ..................................................................................... 9 1.6 The Languages of Thought and Art............................................................................................ 9 2. Visual Arts and the Limits of Language ................................................................................ 12 2.1 Representation in Pre-Modern Art ............................................................................................ 12 2.2 Magritte and Baldessari's Departure from Pure Representation ............................................. 13 2.2.1 Baldessari's Word Canvases .............................................................................................. 14 2.2.2 Magritte and the Treachery of Images ............................................................................. 16 2.2.3 The Montage and the Impossible in Baldessari's work ................................................... 18 2.2.4 Magritte's Multiplying Mysteries ...................................................................................... 22 2.3 Baldessari, Photography and Authorship .................................................................................. 24 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................... 28 Appendix.............................................................................................................................................. 30 Bibliography .............................................................................................................. 40 References........................................................................................................................................... 42

Concepts to Discuss Images and Language

In order to discuss the bearing of theory involving visual and text-based language on the art of Magritte and Baldessari, the first chapter of this paper aims to establish critical concepts and academic viewpoints applicable to the subject.

1.1 The Difference between Images and Words If one is to establish a set of tools to examine images and language, Ferdinand de Saussure's structuralism poses a good starting point. The definition of every language as a "system of signs" (1972 p.33) in conjunction with the statement "the sign is arbitrary" (1972 p.100) means that every language is essentially a system of arbitrary signs. The mechanism to keep this system functioning can be found in graded differences between the signs: "In the language itself, there are only differences [...] and no positive terms" (1972 p.166). Most important for this chapter is the distinction between linguistic signs and images; for the sake of clarity, I will equate the former to words or text, despite there being signs in language other than words. Words do not represent objects through the same principle that images do. To illustrate these different principles, Michel Foucault established the model of resemblance and similitude in his 1966 book "The Order of Things". In an ideal scenario, images represent objects by referring to a prime reference and can always be traced back to this initial source of resemblance. An image therefore "has a 'model', an original element that orders and hierarchizes [it]" (1983 p.44). Words on the other hand do not resemble anything other than themselves; they can only refer to objects on the level of similitude. It is important to note that images are not strictly limited to resemblance; however, words exclusively operate on the level of similitude: a level which "circulates the simulacrum as an indefinite and reversible relation of

the similar to the similar" (1983 p.44). I will discuss the notion of the simulacrum in greater detail in chapter 1.4. To further determine the nature of resemblance and similitude, a spatial model can be used as illustration. While resemblance orders its elements in a linear hierarchy, similitude positions its elements entirely laterally. Since we have already established that words operate on the level of similitude, we can summarize that "[the word] develops in series that have neither beginning nor end, that can be followed in one direction as easily as in another, that obey no hierarchy, but propagate themselves from small differences among small differences." (Foucault, 1983 p.44). 1

1.2 The Polysemous Character of the Image To look at the difference between images and words from another perspective, Roland Barthes' semiology is highly applicable with his famous essay "Rhetoric of the Image" being in the frontline of this discourse. Through decoding photographs and other visual elements found in advertising, Barthes postulates that images can never function on the level of denotation alone (although their nature of resemblance might suggest just that). According to Barthes, "all images are polysemous; they imply, underlying their signifiers, a 'floating chain' of signifieds [...]" (Barthes, 2003, p. 117). Following this notion, images and words are in fact not very different; "floating chain of signifieds" clearly indicates a mechanism congruous with that of similitude. Therefore, the only difference appears to be on the level of the signifiers: While images can express resemblance on its denotative layer, words cannot. In their popular usage however, words and images, most dominantly photographs, exert a tremendous difference precisely on the level resemblance: The polysemous character of the image is quickly 1

The inheritance of the Saussurean principles of the arbitrariness of the sign and a system of language that func-

tions through differences becomes obvious in this context.

dismissed when a man pulls a photo from his pocket and says "this is my dog". A scenario in which he writes down the name of his dog, points towards it and says "this is my dog" appears very unlikely in comparison. The example I have used here is borrowed from Allan Sekula's 1982 essay "On the Invention of Photographic Meaning". Despite Sekula building a very strong case against the notion of photography being "an universal and independent language or sign system" (1982 p.86) amid asserting that "any meaningful encounter with a photograph must necessarily occur at the level of connotation" (p.87), I should not entirely neglect the "naturally appealing" affirmative character of the image. So far, I have used the terms photograph and image almost interchangeably. We shall see in the next chapter if this reading is legitimate or if photography constitutes a special case in regards to this investigation.

1.3 The Succession of the Image In his book titled "Towards a Philosophy of Photography", Villem Flusser argues for a systematic genealogy of images (painting), text (linear writing) and photographs (technical images). To understand this pedigree chart of images, their most fundamental function must be explained: According to Flusser, humans merely "[...] 'ex-ist', i.e. the world is not immediately accessible to them" (2000 p.9). In order to bridge this gap, images are needed as mediators, they "[...] come between the world and human beings" (Flusser, 2000 p.10); if we fail to decode the images we made however, this imagination of the world can quickly turn into hallucination (2000 p.10). Images therefore bare the risk of becoming a substitute reality. To overcome this first order of hallucination, humans invented linear writing by means of abstracting

lines from images (Flusser, 2000 pp.10-13). 2 Despite humanity's efforts to decode their images through writing, the latter is still "subject to the same internal dialectic" (Flusser, 2000 p. 12) and just as fallible accordingly. In case texts become "[...] incomprehensible as images, human being's lives become a function of their texts. There arises a state of 'textolatry' that is no less hallucinatory than idolatry." (2000, p.12)

When we follow Flusser's model to the next step, we find photographic images to be "abstractions of the third order" (2000 p.14) decoding texts which decode traditional images respectively. Hubert Damisch argues in a similar vein: "[The photo is] a cultural object [...] whose being cannot be dissociated from its historical meaning and from the necessarily datable project in which it originates." (2003 p.88)

Consequently, the common assertion that a photograph is an intimately close representation of reality is deeply fallacious. Allan Sekula goes as far as saying that "the overall function of photographic discourse is to render itself transparent" (1982 p.87), the implications of which will be discussed in the next chapter.

1.4 The Innate Deceit of Imagery We have established that all images and texts are cultural objects reliant upon conventions in order to create meaning. However, the aforementioned succession should by no means indicate that images are increasingly diminished copies of one true reality. Instead, images operate mostly as simulacra in a cultural framework. The Latin term simulacrum originates in Plato's famous dialogue "Sophist" where it describes the technique of Greek sculptors to cor-

This appears to be most evident in Christianity's historical struggle to ban the practice of idolatry. John 1:1 comes

to mind: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God."

rect for perspective distortions by altering the real proportions of the upper part of colossal statues so they would appear undistorted to the viewer 3 (Camille, 2003 p.36). Therefore, simulacra can only exist trough some investment on part of the viewer - in this case looking from a certain angle. In essence, the simulacrum subverts the strictly hierarchical relation between model and copy and becomes "more than just a useless image, it is a deviation and perversion of imitation itself - a false likeness" (Camille, 2003 p.36). Gilles Deleuze laid down the foundation for this line of thought in his essay "The Simulacrum and Ancient Philosophy": "[The simulacrum] harbours a positive power which denies the original and the copy, the model and the reproduction. [...] There is no possible hierarchy, no second, no third. [...] The same and the similar no longer have an essence except as simulated, that is as expressing the functioning of the simulacrum." (Deleuze, 1998 p.135)

Jean Baudrillard and Michel Foucault greatly expanded on this concept. While the simulacrum certainly operates congruously to the Focaultian similitude examined in chapter 1.1, its implications reach much further. Likewise, the "floating" character of the signifieds underlying every image explained in chapter 1.2 points in a similar direction while not revealing a structural deceit by itself. Finally, chapter 1.3 comes very close to the essence of this argument: every distinctive evolutionary step the image takes in Flusser's model serves as a correction method complementary to the work of the Greek sculptors. Despite becoming infinitely more distorted, images appear increasingly real to us, shaped by and adapted to the vantage point which is our culture. Hallucination became the status quo; reality as we perceive it is already shaped by the simulacrum.

Even without their cultural distortions, photographs are still simulacra in a strict material sense: "One forgets [...]

the image the first photographers were hoping to seize [...] [was] in no sense naturally given. [...] The lens itself, which had been carefully corrected for 'errors', is scarcely as objective as it seems." (Damisch, 2003 p.88)

1.5 The Systemic Defect of Representation The disappearance of the objectively real due to its representation by language (be it linguistics or image-based language) is a concept permeating much of postmodern philosophy. It might be most famously described by Baudrillard's concept of hyperreality in his 1985 book "Simulacra and Simulation": "In fact, [the real] is no longer really the real, because no imaginary envelopes it anymore. It is a hyperreal, produced from a radiating synthesis of combinatory models in a hyperspace without atmosphere." (1994 p.2)

He later carried this concept as far as to assert that the content of any message is entirely without meaning and that "at bottom the message already no longer exists" (2002 p.131). This condition effectively terminates representation while instead merely propagating "[...] the medium that imposes itself in pure circulation" (2002 p.131). It is worth mentioning that this line of reasoning was in essence conceived by Marshall McLuhan's memorable 1964 dictum "the medium is the message".

1.6 The Language of Thought and Art Even further back in time, many of Ludwig Wittgenstein's findings in his 1922 landmark work "Tractatus logico-philosophicus" validate and strengthen these much younger concepts. To understand the relevance of Wittgenstein's notions to the subject of this discussion, I would like to employ a hypothesis: If it is merely our language which is defective, a dualistic model separating intrinsic thoughts from extrinsic language offers a solution. If our thoughts inevitably constitute the axioms of reality 4, finding a way to adequately communicate them would eliminate all the flaws of language: If the latter was merely a wall between the true thoughts of 4

As the Cartesian model of the mind which binds our consciousness to an infallible domain dictates.

individuals, simply tearing it down would obliterate all simulacra and reinstate valid representation above "the ecstasy of communication" (Baudrillard, 2002 p.131) again. However, what Ludwig Wittgenstein's investigation of the relation between thought and language revealed puts an end to such speculation: "The limits of my language mean the limits of my world." (2001, p.68)

The limit of language simultaneously becomes the limit of thought and both entities are, in fact, inseparable: the unsayable and the unthinkable are indeed the same thing. It is widely believed that any form of art has the potential to transcend language simply due to its presupposed detachment from words: Apparently, the imaginary object in the artist's mind is translated onto the canvas by a process 5 different to natural language 6. However, this argument from aesthetic idealism stems from the same claim to dualism we have seen above. When Hagberg explains that "linguistic correspondence serves as the general conceptual model for aesthetic idealism and that word and work are each believed to bear the same relationship to thought" (1995 p.36) the link to Wittgenstein's model becomes clear: If art aims to overcome the limits of language, it must not rely on the same dualistic notions of thought and expression Wittgenstein has shown to be "non-sense". To further illuminate this point, another remark from his "Philosophical Investigations" is highly applicable:

There are many candidates for this process such as the unmediated intentions or feelings of the artist; the argu-

ment that emotions can unambiguously be communicated through art might be the most pervasive presumption amongst these. 6

The need to speak of natural language in this context to describe our common languages like English, French etc.

appears false in light of the cultural deformations language underwent throughout history (as shown in chapter 1.3 to 1.5).

"[...] it is clear that one can want to speak without speaking. Just as one can want to dance without dancing. And when we think about this, we grasp at the image of dancing, speaking, etc." (Wittgenstein in Hagberg, 1980 p.75)

By adding "painting, composing, sculpting, writing, designing" (1980 p.75) to the quote, Hagberg demonstrates the interconnectedness of thought and art. If his addition is valid, we must deduce that in Wittgenstein's philosophy, the bond between art and thought is just as inseparable as the bond between thought and language. Whether this becomes a limitation of thought or an expansion thereof cannot be easily answered; neither the capacities of expression found in natural language nor their counterpart in "artistic language" seem to be measurable and therefore, hardly comparable. However, the vast possibilities to use the latter to comment on the former is exactly the terrain I believe Magritte and Baldessari are charting with their work. Both exert a tremendous awareness of the problems of representation found in imagery and language while leaving idealistic conceptions of art behind.

Visual arts and the limits of language

By using the critical concepts established earlier, the second chapter of this paper will investigate key works by John Baldessari and RenĂŠ Magritte. Furthermore, the question emerging out of this context is whether the artworks being discussed here serve as mere illustration of the theories involved or if their practice can indeed reach further. Although this question can hardly be answered given the limited scope of this paper, its presence shall illuminate an uncertainty underlying any such examination: The influence of theory on practice and vice versa.

2.1 Representation in Pre-modern Art One of the most readily assumed features of pre-modern7 painting is the bond between representation and affirmation. It is the assumption that what we see in an image constitutes - explicitly or implicitly - its content. It remained "unchanged and form part of what most Europeans still expect from the visual arts: likeness, the representation of appearances [and] the depiction of particular events and their settings" (Berger, 1980 p.162). It might be precisely this expectation that led Baldessari to say: "By late '65 I was finished with painting ... I was attempting to make something that didn't emanate art signals. The only art signal I wanted was the canvas." (Baldessari in Gardner, 1989 p.107)

Before I return to what Baldessari meant by the canvas in chapter 2.2.1, it is important to note that traditional art and specifically painting seems to propagate - above anything else - the rules for its own discourse: the allowance for meaning through representation solely on the 7

The period of pre-modern painting was only chosen to present a clear example. The belief in the autonomous,

self-sufficient artwork remained largely unchallenged throughout modernism until its dissection by postmodern artists.

basis of resemblance. In this respect, Baldessari echoes Marcel Duchamp's disdain for what he called "retinal art" 8 (Duchamp in Gardner, 1989 p.108), the departure from which can be found in his famous readymades. I have described images that function entirely on the level of resemblance as an ideal scenario in chapter 1.1; this scenario is virtually impossible in the real world. Nevertheless, the pre-modern art discourse denies this fact and puts painting forward as the prime bearer of this denial. Notwithstanding that, the withdrawal from painting alone is by no means sufficient for a paradigm shift. To change the medium does not necessarily change the language, nor is it required. This is delicately illustrated in Magritte's work, who "never questioned the aptness of [painting's] language for what he had to say" (Berger, 1980 p.162). Although this seems to be paradoxical in regards to "the medium being the message", we shall see if Magritte's subtlety might nevertheless contribute to the discussion despite McLuhan's point.

2.2 Magritte and Baldessari's Departure from Pure Representation Within this chapter I am going to discuss specific works by Baldessari and Magritte in regards to representation, language and the limits thereof. To illustrate their common themes and relatedness but also their disagreements I will alternate between distinct concepts of their work in order to establish a dialogue.

"Retinal" emphasizes the eye above the brain. In this regard, there is strong connection to what Flusser described

as the difference between "imaginative thought" and "conceptual thought" (2000 p.11). While the former operates on the level of images alone, the latter enables more abstract thought based on text. Consequently, Duchamp being described as one of the first "conceptual artists" using his work to comment on the retinal art becomes all the more conclusive.

2.2.1 Baldessari's Word Canvases If one is to find an entrance into Baldessari's treatment of words and images, his series of "word canvases" from the 1960s seem the most obvious choice. The sheer difficulty in deciding whether he wrote the words or indeed painted them emphasizes that this work is indeed not trivial but startlingly complex. While the mere usage of words as figurative elements is not uncommon in painting, here they exist as the exclusive element in an otherwise blank picture, indicating a clear breach of the classical conventions surrounding the canvas: "I sought to use language not as a visual element but as something to read." (Baldessari in Gardner, 1989 p.108). How the presence of text-to-read in an image can throw the viewer off is also welldemonstrated by Magritte's "The Treachery of Images" which will be the subject of the next chapter. For the moment however, I would like to focus the attention on "Semi-Close-Up of Girl By Geranium" (please see fig.1), a striking example of the interconnectedness of images and words. Reading the text written like a storyboard instruction inevitably creates an image in our minds; any comprehension of the text without using our imagination seems impossible. We long for a picture which is not there - an image though, that would in itself just be another complex 9. We are acutely made aware of the latter only because the words are presented on a canvas. If we follow the instructions and substitute the words for an image, the canvas nevertheless stays visible; we do not imagine the scene as a specific painting on it. Therefore, Baldessari has made the canvas strikingly visible to us, also reminding us of its presence in pictures where it is completely covered with paint. While speculating that any text could create the exact same girl with the exact same geranium in the minds of only two viewers seems absurd, it is readily assumed that everyone sees

A combination of the actual paint and the canvas (which is bound to a plethora of conventions, essentially sabo-

taging the denotative layer of a painting).

the exact same image as long as it is visual. This assertion becomes obsolete against "SemiClose-Up of Girl By Geranium"; the postmodern position that images largely operate like texts is plausibly illustrated by it. "I guess it is fundamental to my work that I tend to think of words as substitutes for images. I can never seem to figure out what one does that the other doesn't do, so it propels me this kind of bafflement." (Baldessari in Morgan, 2009 p.21)

There is yet another factor of this investigation set out against the idea of linear representation10 by images. Collin Gardner wrote in "A Systematic Bewildering", a 1989 article on Baldessari: "Language operates in the absence of objects, arousing but simultaneously frustrating our desire to see; our only option is to read these paintings as we read a novel or a poem. And who, then, is responsible for creating the image - the artist or the viewer?" (1989 p.108)

In this scenario, the canvas stops working like a transparent surface. It can neither claim to be a window into a reality it intrinsically represents nor can it claim to be a window into the mind of the artist 11. Instead, we are confronted with a reflective surface, deriving its meaning almost entirely through context; the autonomous model of the work of art disappears. The determinism of author - image - content - reception gets replaced by a lateral model coherent with similitude. Although Magritte might not have challenged representation up to the level of authorship and institution, his investigation of the relation of images and text as signs nevertheless echoes much of what we have seen in this chapter.

See the linear propagation of resemblance in chapter 1.1.

I have relocated a more in-depth discussion of the role of authorship in representation to chapter 2.3 since Bal-

dessari deploys conceptual strategies that go beyond this chapter.

2.2.2 RenĂŠ Magritte and the Treachery of Images To understand how writing "this is not a pipe" underneath a delicate, most definite painting of a pipe (see fig.2) created one of the most recognizable and intellectually praised artworks in the twentieth century requires some investment on part of the viewer. We have seen in the chapter before how text and image - despite their similarity in function - can never seem to coexist on a canvas. Magritte goes one step further however, and states flat out that "this is not a pipe". But to what does "this" refer and which pipe is the subject of the accusation? To sufficiently discuss this question, I am going to use three illustrations created by Michel Foucault in "This Is Not a Pipe", the book from 1983 he dedicated exclusively to Magritte's work. The first, seemingly trivFig.3. p.26

ial and probably most common reading can be seen

on the left: The image we see is not (materially or otherwise) the same as the word "pipe". A slightly modified interpretation is shown in fig. 4: The statement found underneath the pipe cannot represent the pipe as an object, one of "whose possible rendering can be seen above the text" (p.27). If we Fig.4. p.27

combine the two readings we are left with what Collin

Gardner called a "semantic impasse" (1989 p.109) between the text and image; their "attacks launched by one against the other, arrows shot at the enemy target, enterprises of subversion and destruction [...]" (Foucault, 1983 p.26) ultimately cancel each other out.

When seen as a compound projected back on itself and scrutinized under its own proclamation, the ensemble creates a paradox: Fig.5. p.28

Although words and images de-

pend on each other to create meaning, their unity can only exist in absence of each other. Foucault invoked the small space running between words and images in a book as analogy to this upmost dialectical relationship: "It is there, on these few milimeters of white, the calm sand of the page, that are established all the relations of designation, nomination, description, classification." (1989 p.28)

Curiously enough, the concept of absence became a leitmotif in much of Magritte's art according to Berger: the mastery of this dialectic unfolds in "what is not shown" (1980 p.162). A great example of this can be found in the famous 1926 painting "The Menaced Assassin" (see fig.6). Although everything is plainly visible in this image, in fact "everything remains mysterious - the committed murder, the future arrest, the appearance of the three staring men in the window" (Berger, 1980 p.163). Magritte used the visual as metaphor for its limitations, becoming a caricature of its own assertion. Critics have pointed out that the surrealist's endeavour to "demolish the prevailing symbolic order" (Gardner, 1989 p.109) ultimately fails because of its encoding in "the very forms (words and images) of the symbolic order that it has attempted to sidestep or avoid" (Welchman in Gardner, p.110). Due to the plethora of various implications found in Magritte's body of work it is hard to determine how closely he was affiliated with the surrealist's project.

However, Baldessari's work of the 1970s 12 made precisely the dilemma pointed out above - the separation of meaning (or the sheer impetus to say something) from language - its focal point. While it appears that many artists affiliated with the surrealist movement attempted to create a new symbolic order by fusing words and image to overcome the dilemma 13, Baldessari never made such direct attempts: "The linguistic and the visual are inextricably linked in Baldessari's work, yet they remain fundamentally irreconcilable." (Ferguson, 2009 p.92)

2.2.3 The Montage and the Impossible in Baldessari's Work So what are the strategies deployed by Baldessari to deal with this irreconcilability? Above everything else it seems to be the deliberate choice to comment on the most heated debates conceptual artist fought in the 1960s and 70s while not adhering to any agenda by himself. The main method for this commentary could in the broadest sense be described as montage. Virtually all of his work sitting between photography, painting, film, collaboration, text et cetera seem to go against the commonly established conventions surrounding each one of them. Furthermore, montage offers an ideal antithesis to "Modernism's assertion of the organic, integrated symbol as the locus of meaning" (Gardner, 1989 p.108): Montage demonstrates how meaning is not generated from within but from the in-between of distinctive parts 14. It is therefore hardly surprising that many scholars including Berthold Brecht, Walter Benjamin and Theodor Adorno became fierce advocates of this detection method "opening up language itself to a critique of its social ideological constructs" (Gardner, 1989 p.109). However, Bald12

Which has after all been described as the "grandchild" of "The Treachery of Images" (Gardner, p.109).

Such as Paul Klee with the famous "Villa R" (please see fig. 7).

We generally came to call this phenomenon "context". In essence, a montage could be described as miniature

model of the world structured by semiotics we live in.

essari himself would probably deny any intention of installing such a definite socio-political message. It appears on the contrary, that at least some of his work spoofs even the undertakings of some of his conceptual contemporaries to the point of utter absurdity. A fitting example of this is the 1972 project entitled "The Artist Hitting Various Objects with a Golf Club" (see fig. 8). Leslie Jones, an essayist studying Baldessari seems to have a good reason to ask: "As viewer, one may stumble and ask, what makes this art? Imagine if you were a student of a teacher hitting trash with a golf club. What are you supposed to learn?" (2009 p.51)

It is very hard to determine whether this piece is directed against the art-establishment or if this deliberately gratuitous exercise with "the artist" being emphasized in the title shall point out how negligible the effect of art on society really is. Should the role of the artist really be one to whack around trash with a golf club in a remote spot somewhere? Regardless of how we answer this question, the piece certainly raises our awareness towards the role of the artist. Moreover, it marks a clear difference between the viewpoints of Baldessari and Magritte. "[...] after 1925 Magritte's methods grew virtually static. Despite the reproaches of some critics, formal and material problems lay almost wholly outside his realms of interest. He disliked being called an artist, preferring to be considered a thinker who communicated by means of paint." (Harkness, 1983 p.2)

This idea of a philosopher using a stable artistic practice as vehicle for thought certainly has a great appeal to it. Be that as it may, neglecting the critical role of the medium is diametrically opposed to Baldessari's continuous self invention and reorientation15, allowing for the diminishment of the own message to the point of tautology when the methods used get slowly ab-

As being evident in the 1969 "Cremation Project", in itself a metaphor for a radical cut where Baldessari had all

of his paintings that were in his possession at that time cremated.

sorbed into the mainstream; a fate that seems inevitable. 16 It might be argued on the one hand, that this fate does not really concern artists with no ambitions to commentate while Baldessari's non-allegiance on the other hand ultimately revokes the ability to influence the discussion (be it desired or not). Joseph Kosuth 17, a contemporary of Baldessari and famous member of the conceptual art movement indeed argued that his work is "not really relevant to this discussion." (Kosuth in Godfrey, 1998 p.172). I shall end this digression by pointing out what Baldessari said in a 2009 interview at the opening of the "Pure Beauty" retrospective at Tate Modern. He not only denies his own categorization as either pop or conceptual artist, but also questions the validity in categorizing art as a whole. According to Baldessari, these projections are usually made in retrospect without doing the individuality of the artists much justice. Baldessari's valence to this day is not coincidental. He has been called an "artist's artist" in the same interview; I believe the reason for this can be found in the figure of the artist which emerges out of his practice: Taking both the avant-garde and the established methods with a hint of humour, accepting the post-modern condition yet trying to stay very sensitive towards formal questions. This seems to be a very healthy attitude, enabling the artist to do a lot of experimentation and even to do truly gratuitous things - like hitting trash with a golf club. Another great example of this attitude which also brings me back to montage and the original subject of this chapter is the "Aligning: Balls" series Baldessari did in the 70s (see fig. 9). He photographed a large red ball in various, mundane settings and had it appear in differ16

For example, even the formerly mentioned "readymades" by Marcel Duchamp are now being displayed in the

most established institutions of art. 17

Kosuth's "One and Three Chairs" would have made an excellent case study if the focus of this paper laid more on

the ontology of materiality found in language. One might also see Baldessari's 1968 word canvas with "Everything is Purged from this Painting but Art; no Ideas have entered this Work" written on it as a parody on Kosuth's 1967 "NOTHING" series which seems to take itself much more serious.

ent locations of the frame. The reshuffling of montage happens when the photographs are presented on a wall: it is not the edges of the pictures that are being aligned (as one might expect) but instead the balls are made to sit on an imaginary straight line forcing the photographs to bounce up and down in a wave pattern. The first questions this piece asks of the viewer are: Why does this seem so unusual? Why is it always the frames which dictate an order on the wall? Again, we are made aware of the presence of the frame or canvas as dominant, formalizing devices. A different scenario appears alien to us. But this is precisely what we are being presented with in this simple yet ingenious work, a montage creating a contentdominated syntax. The counterpart of this, a scenario of syntax-dominated content is illustrated by a piece Baldessari made the following year (see fig. 10). The content here gets dictated by the formal requirement of a "straight line". The viewer might ask: Why not a triangle? How will the straightest line be determined? What is the reason behind this exercise? Calling for such questions to show the shallowness of meaning that arises out of a situation where form governs content is exactly the point - and also the current situation Baudrillard testifies to: A hyperreality with little meaning other than the medium itself. To refine this interpretation, I would like to focus the attention on the discrepancy also present in the titles of the two artworks. The full title of the second piece reads "Throwing Three Balls into the Air to get a Straight Line (Best of Thirty Six Attempts)": a very precise description alluding to the level of taxonomy. In contrast, the title of the first piece simply reads "Aligning: Balls". Would it not have been more accurate to call the first piece "Aligning Pictures on the Wall so that the Balls Inside of them form a Straight Line"? I do not think so. Baldessari very deliberately let the titles reflect their meaning, that is, a combination of their formal guidelines and their actual content. Therefore, a rather imprecise title had to be used for the first piece in order to avoid

contradicting the content-dominated syntax while the very rigid title of the second piece emphasizes its domination by formalities. It is one of the great strengths of Baldessari's work to raise our awareness towards these minute formalities and remind us how they also permeate a grander picture: "Unlike the Dadaists or Surrealists, Baldessari is always raising questions about formal issues as an entry and conduit into chasing deferred meaning." (Gardner, 1989 p.110)

Although Baldessari's awareness of the medium seems to be more in line with Baudrillard's and Foucault's postmodern theories on fragmented, deferred meaning, we shall not neglect Magritte's later work in this regard with "The Two Mysteries" (1966) being a prime example and subject of the next chapter (see fig. 11).

2.2.4 Magritte's Multiplying Mysteries The painter Francis Bacon allegedly said "If you can talk about it, why paint it?" Not only does this remark offer some intriguing perspective on the limits of language being overcome by painting, it is also quite accurate in regards to Magritte's "Two Mysteries". This painting confronts us with an avalanche of intricate messages and contradictions condensed on a canvas. Although one can certainly describe and analyze it, it is very hard to convey the mysteries present in this piece without constantly falling back on the visual representation it criticizes so eloquently. The painting consists of the original "Treachery of Images" set against a dark background, sitting on what appears to be a blackboard on an easel in a room with no other elements but the floor, a wall and a massive, seemingly floating pipe. If the question which pipe is meant by the statement "this is not a pipe" is also applied to this piece, we get an answer that is hardly comprehensible. According to Foucault, we get no less than seven pipes that could have been

addressed: three individual pipes (the pipe on the board, the pipe in the text of the board and the floating pipe) plus four more pipes as combinations of the three (1983 pp.47-49). Although these confusing numbers alone show some playfulness similar to that of Baldessari, the humour lies in the fact that all seven pipes are begging for our attention, telling the others to stay down since they do not exist (we might imagine quite a brawl given the confined space of this canvas). The only logical conclusion we can draw from this is that behind all this spectacle - there is in fact not a single pipe. Foucault described this circumstance as the "seven seals of affirmation", postulating that the main purpose of Magritte's endeavour was to separate affirmation from resemblance. We need to keep in mind what happens when affirmation is removed from resemblance: The sign enters the realm of similitude, serving "[...] the affirmation of the simulacrum, affirmation of the element within the network of the similar" (1983 p.47). Furthermore, the existential18 need for attention by the non-messages presented in "The Two Mysteries" strongly reminds us of what Baudrillard described as the "ecstasy" of communication where there is no exchange of real content any longer and true representation ceases to exists: "All functions abolished in a single dimension, that of communication. That's the ecstasy of communication." (1992 p.131)

Despite the similarity, we can only speculate if Magritte had quite such a grim fate for resemblance in mind when he painted "The Two Mysteries", because what he said on the issue seems to have hopeful implications: "Only thought can resemble. It resembles by being what it sees, hears or knows; it becomes what the world offers it." (Magritte in Foucault, 1983 pp.46-47). Only if "world" means a world yet unstructured by semiotics, there might be a 18

To call this need existential is by no means exaggerated: A message with no substance can only exist and give the

illusion of meaning through its constant propagation.

chance to escape hyperreality. Even if that was the case, these thoughts must also be communicated without ambiguity to avoid becoming yet another simulacrum. In essence, these two assumptions go back full circle to the examination of aesthetic idealism in chapter 1.6 under which both of them fail due to the restrictions imposed on thought by Wittgenstein's theory: If language and thought are indeed inseparable and language is a construct of arbitrary signs, thought can subsequently not resemble anything other than the simulacrum nor can there be a language beyond thought. So what then, we might ask, do these artistic investigations of language have to offer? To answer this question I would like to refer the reader to the conclusion of this paper. Before that, I will examine the photography and collaboration in Baldessari's work. Since both topics do not touch on Magritte's practice they belong in a separate chapter outside of the dialogue format used until this point.

2.3 Baldessari, Photography and Authorship As we have established in chapter 1.3, Villem Flusser sees the photograph as the latest image in a succession of painting to text to photograph. Therefore, this "prime simulacrum" seems to be deserving of a special treatment if the artist's task is one to uncover distortions in language 19. However, since photography's bond between resemblance and affirmation appears unlike stronger than the one in painting, the artist has to resolve to unusual methods to show its materiality behind the seemingly transparent surface. A very literal yet elegant work by Baldessari to illustrate this is a piece from 1966 titled "Looking East on 4th and C, Chula Vista, Calif." (see fig. 12). There is a curious dichotomy between the title on the one hand,

As Flusser argues for necessity of technical images, barely keeping our texts comprehensible (2000 p.13).

which seems to be burdening the aesthetics of this piece while tying it to a technical, matterof-fact premise and the process on the other hand by which this photograph was developed: "By developing the snapshot onto a conventionally stretched canvas coated with white primer and photoemulsion, Baldessari encodes his image within the rhetoric of painting." (Gardner, 1989 p.108)

It is reasonable to argue that Baldessari projected the discourse of painting onto that of photography to demonstrate that the latter is by no means closer to the truth "by design". Such clarification seems all the more warranted in light of a modernist's discourse which indeed makes claims to intrinsic truth in photography - although these claims are usually not derived from photography's presupposed transparency but from the maker of the work, another factor Baldessari delivered his work from. This deliverance is well described in Douklas Eklund's 2009 essay "'No Success like Failure': Deskilling and Collaboration in the Work of John Baldessari". Eklund explains how Baldessari freed his work from "reified conceptions of authorship" (2009, p.84) through collaboration. It is precisely this reification which binds the work of art to yet another form of representation, that is, the claim of intrinsic authorship: Within this scenario, figures in a painting or a photograph become mere actors, representing the artist's viewpoint and projecting it outwards by means of a monologue. The aforementioned modernist photography's discourse makes a fine example of this type of reified authorship; Alfred Stieglitz is certainly no exception when he describes his famous 1907 photograph "The Steerage": "[...] I saw shapes related to each other. I saw a picture of shapes and underlying that of the feeling I had about life. [...] Had I gotten my picture? I knew if I had, another milestone in photography would have been reached [...] for here would be a picture based on related shapes and on the deepest human feeling, a step in my own evolution, a spontaneous discovery." (Stieglitz in Sekula, 1982 pp.98-99)

Although Stieglitz abandons the idea of photographs being "pure representation" 20, his model strengthens the bond between the work and what it represents by letting the author act as a focusing lens. This marks yet another barrier that Baldessari overcomes, a barrier very similar to the aforementioned "frontier" of the white space brought forward by Foucault. "On the page of an illustrated book, we seldom pay attention to the small space running above the words and below the drawings, forever serving them as a common frontier [...] [establishing] all the relations of designation, nomination, description and classification." (1983, p. 28)

One cannot help to wonder if the gap between the tag for the name of the author underneath a work of art in a gallery does not serve an analogous purpose. Furthermore, the word "author" is etymologically derived from Latin "augeo" which means to originate; its close kinship to "authority" also implies hierarchy. Therefore, we might wonder if authorship should not be compared to Foucault's concept of resemblance, which "presumes a primary reference that prescribes and classes" (1983, p.9). To simplify this line of thought we could say: "the work resembles the author." While this statement seems trivial and common sense might tell us it must be true for any artwork, Baldessari designed collaborative strategies to spoof such assumptions. One among many examples for this strategy is a video piece titled "Ed Henderson Suggests Sound Tracks for Photographs" (1974, see fig. 13) in which Baldessari gave a student three attempts to pick the "right" soundtrack to accompany a film-still photograph. This situation was consciously set up to produce a scenario where "authorship is dispersed throughout the piece and can't be pinned to any particular authority" (Eklund, 2009 p. 84). Mitigating authorship to the point of utter ambiguity became a common motif in Baldessari's

An idea that was commonly postulated since the invention of photography; being evident in the titles of early

photographic works such as "The Pencil of Nature" by WHF Talbot

work; moreover, through severing the bond between the author and the work Baldessari also moved it one step further away from what might be called "traditional representation" but yet another step closer to the audience by not assuming the role of a distortive mediator - the power of which dwindles in any case when history becomes the dominating context framing an artwork. By accepting this fate and not trying to eternalize his work in any artificial way, Baldessari might have - paradoxically -achieved exactly that. Although this is not to say that his work gained any special status or exists outside the dynamic arts discourse, the unique way of commentary and satire directed at both sides of an argument makes Baldessari's practice as relevant as it could be whenever a new contestant of such arguments leaps forward into the debate.

Conclusion At the end of chapter 2.2.4 I have raised the question what the artistic investigations of the subjects of language with its intricate representations can offer. I believe to give a conclusive answer might prove just as difficult as attempting to square Baldessari's treatment of images with the great painter Henri Matisse's - whom he called among his favourite artists (Ferguson, 2004 p.32) - famous statement: "He who wants to dedicate himself to painting should start by cutting out his tongue." (Matisse in Flam, 1995 p.2)

If we take this statement literally, Baldessari's "word canvases" would certainly have failed in the eyes of Matisse. But then again, absolutes rarely stand the test of time in a dynamic, fluctuating art world. It is unimportant for both Magritte's and Baldessari's art to move beyond representation or transcend the limits of language as the title of this paper might suggest at first glance. What most certainly has moved beyond any traceable representation of reality is our culture at large. Be that as it may, their art can still get us as close to the essence of things as our cultural human nature permits, deepening our understanding of the various simulacra, peeling off one distorted layer at a time. It might be surprising to learn that some layers indeed come from inside of the arts discourse itself: The "sign emergence" (Sekula, 1982 p.87) that readily occurs when artists claim that their methods are unambiguous is just one example that was covered in this paper - a claim which Baldessari skilfully dissects. In essence, certain artistic practices can make us aware of the complex processes by which meaning arises, not only in the arts but also in the common language we use. Although I do not believe this necessitates to step outside the linguistic language, I remain doubtful whether the former could ever unveil its own flaws quite as effectively as "The two Mysteries" by Magritte does.

What profited most from this investigation is my own artistic practice. There is a certain dialectic visible in Baldessari's work that meets the requirements of the pervasive, sometimes overpowering postmodern discourse with a humour and sophistication rarely seen in other artists. We can learn by studying his work how to use a medium as a tool without ever becoming a tool of that medium's discourse ourselves.

Appendix

Fig 1 Baldessari, J. (1966-68) Semi-close up of a girl by geranium, oil on canvas. Morgan, J. and Jones, L., p.37

Fig 2 Magritte, R. (1928-29) The treachery of images, oil on canvas. Foucault, M., frontpage

Fig 6 Magritte, R. (1927) The menaced assassin, oil on canvas. [Online] http://www.artchive.com/artchive/m/magritte/menaced_assassin.jpg, [Acccessed: 17 March 2010]

Fig 7 Klee, P. (1919) Villa r, oil on cardboard. [Online] http://www.reproarte.com/Kunstwerke/Paul_Klee/Villa+R/17801.html, [Acccessed: 18 March 2010]

Fig 8 Baldessari, J. (1972-73) The artist hitting various objects with golf club. (detail) Morgan, J. and Jones, L., p.135

Fig 9 Baldessari, J. (1972) Aligning: balls. Morgan, J. and Jones, L., p.106

Fig 10 Baldessari, J. (1973) Throwing three balls into the air to get a straight line (best of thirty six attempts).Morgan, J. and Jones, L., p.165

Fig 11 Magritte, R. (1966) The two mysteries, oil on canvas. [Online] http://tembs.chez.com/LesDeuxMysteres.jpg, [Acccessed: 17 March 2010]

Fig 12 Baldessari, J. (1966) Looking east on 4th and C, Chula Vista, Calif. (Morgan, J. and Jones, L., p. 38)

Fig 13 Baldessari, J. (1974) Ed Henderson suggests sound tracks for photographs, Videofilm (Morgan, J. and Jones, L., p. 161)

Bibliography Barthes, R. (2003) Rhetoric of the image, in: Wells. L. (ed.) The photography reader. Abingdon: Routledge, pp.114-125. Baudrillard, J. (1992) The ecstasy of communication, in Foster, H. (ed.) The anti-aesthetic: essays on postmodern culture. New York, The New Press, pp.126-134. Baudrillard, J. (1996) Simulacra and simulation. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Baudrillard, J. (1999) The ecstasy of communication. New York: Autonomedia. Berger, J. (1980) About looking. London: Bloomsbury Publishing. Brik, O. (2003) What the eye does not see, in: Wells. L. (ed.) The photography reader. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 90-91. Camille, M. (2003) Three simulacrum, in: Nelson, R. S. & Shiff, R. (ed.) Critical terms for art history. Chicago: Chicago University Press, pp.36-48. Damisch, H. (2003) Five notes for a phenomenology of the photographic image, in: Wells. L. (ed.) The photography reader. Abingdon: Routledge, pp.87-89. de Saussure, F. (1972) Course in general linguistics. Peru, Illinois: Open Court Publishing Company. Deleuze, G. (1998) The simulacrum and ancient philosophy, in: Taylor, V. E. & Winquist, C. E. (ed.) Postmodernism: critical concepts. Abingdon: Routledge, pp.128-151. Ferguson, R. (2004) With orange, in: Dailey, M. (ed.) John Baldessari: somewhere between almost right and not quite (with orange). London: Thames & Hudson, pp.29-35. Ferguson, R. (2009) Unreliable narrator, in: Morgan, J. & Jones, L. John Baldessari: pure beauty. London: Tate Publishing, pp.87-94. Flam, J. (1995) Matisse on art. London: University of California Press.

Flusser, V. (2000) Towards a philosophy of photography. London: Reaktion Books. Foucault, M. (1983) This is not a pipe. Berkeley: University of California Press. Gardner, C. (1989) A systematic bewildering. (John Baldessari), in: Artforum international, 28(4), pp. 106-112. Godfrey, T. (1998) Conceptual art a&i (art and ideas). London: Phaidon Press. Harkness, J. (1983) Translator's introduction, in: Foucault, M. This is not a pipe. Berkeley: University of California Press. Hagberg, G. L. (1995) Art as Language: Wittgenstein, meaning and aesthetic theory. New York: Cornell University Press. Jones, L. (2009) Art lesson: a narrative chronology of John Baldessari's life and work, in: Morgan, J. & Jones, L. John Baldessari: pure beauty. London: Tate Publishing, pp.46-60. Leak, A. (1994) Barthes: Mythologies. London: Grant & Cutler. McLuhan, M. (1994) Understanding media: the extensions of man. London: The MIT Press. Morgan, J. & Jones, L. (2009) John Baldessari: pure beauty. London: Tate Publishing. Morgan, J. (2009) Choosing (a game for two curators), in Morgan, J. & Jones, L. John Baldessari: pure beauty. London: Tate Publishing, pp.20-15. Sekula, A. (1982) On the invention of photographic meaning, in: Burgin, V. (ed.) Thinking photography. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Wittgenstein, L. (2001) Tractatus logico-philosophicus. Abingdon: Routledge.

References Baldessari, J. (2009) Interview: Talking art (opening of the pure beauty exhibition at Tate Modern), 8 October [Online]. http://channel.tate.org.uk/media/47005821001 [Acccessed: 22 November 2009]